Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

It seems to me that this proposal strikes a good balance in making an 
effort to improve the situation regarding our document track.

Regarding the particular clause:

On 1/24/2011 1:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
...
> 2. I found this statement to be strange:
>
>     The intention of the two-tier maturity
>     ladder is to restore the requirements for Proposed Standard from RFC
>     2026.
>
> Why "restore"? Have they been superseded or ignored? I suggest "retain".

I think the use of the word "restore" is very important. Over the years, 
our informal requirements and our sense of what was needed for Proposed 
Standard have moved up noticeably.  This reflected a number of factors, 
all of them driven as best I can tell by good intentions.
Restoring the lower bar for PS is probably the most direct benefit this 
proposal can have on our work.

Separately, the replacement of the requirement for verified 
interoperability with the assumption of interoperability based on wide 
deployment is an understandable compromise.  I am not sure I like this 
change, but I can live with it, which is good enough.

I do like the more relaxed wording on the removal of unused features.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern